Is god a mormon?

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Enough talk about Ahab.  Ahab was banned and can not post anymore.  Hi.  This is Jamie.,  This is not Ahab.  

Well Jamie, you sure do a good imitation.

You are familiar with the definition of insanity right?

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, Jamie said:

This is not Ahab.  

This is also not Ahab.

[AtlanticMike]

9 minutes ago, Jamie said:

Enough talk about Ahab.  Ahab was banned and can not post anymore.  Hi.  This is Jamie.,  This is not Ahab.  

I love you man, you crack me the hell up!

[Jamie]

2 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I love you man, you crack me the hell up!

I still love your attitude.  And attitudes are what I notice most when I notice anyone saying anything.  Regardless of what their name is or how that person is judged by other people.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, tell me then, what are the natural law consequences of sin?

Bumping in case you missed it: That is just a matter of semantics. Give me your definition of "natural law", "sin" and "spiritual" and I will try to reply using your language to express this spiritual principle.

Posted 20 hours ago

Posted 8 hours ago

[ttribe]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is just a matter of semantics. Give me your definition of "natural law", "sin" and "spiritual" and I will try to reply using your language to express this spiritual principle.

Unfortunately, 'a matter of semantics' doesn't quite capture the discussion.  If you go back and look at my comments on this subject, I believe it is very evident what I consider to be a natural law versus spiritual laws regarding the concept of 'sin.'  It continues to be my assertion that there is no 'sin' which results in a violation of a natural law.  For example, disobedience to the Word of Wisdom does not result in the earth spinning off its axis.  The consequences of 'sin' are either: 1) imposed by humans or a Diety; or 2), societal.  It may follow that a person loses his or her Temple Recommend as a result of disobedience, but nature has no reaction to that event.

[Jamie]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Unfortunately, 'a matter of semantics' doesn't quite capture the discussion.  If you go back and look at my comments on this subject, I believe it is very evident what I consider to be a natural law versus spiritual laws regarding the concept of 'sin.'  It continues to be my assertion that there is no 'sin' which results in a violation of a natural law.  For example, disobedience to the Word of Wisdom does not result in the earth spinning off its axis.  The consequences of 'sin' are either: 1) imposed by humans or a Diety; or 2), societal.  It may follow that a person loses his or her Temple Recommend as a result of disobedience, but nature has no reaction to that event.

Try considering each person as an entity of nature where each person's outcome is a consequence of his or her choices and any assistance he or she received from some other person(s).

So while the universe will go along and get along just fine regardless of what kind of person you turn out to be, YOU will be a consequence of your own actions combined with any help you received from other people.

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, ttribe said:

If you go back and look at my comments on this subject, I believe it is very evident what I consider to be a natural law versus spiritual laws regarding the concept of 'sin.' 

Great!

You know your definitions and semantics for these questions so answer them for yourself.

You expect someone else learn what ambiguous words mean for you and THEN answer you back using your semantic nuances?

Totally absurd!

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Great!

You know your definitions and semantics for these questions so answer them for yourself.

You expect someone else learn what ambiguous words mean for you and THEN answer you back using your semantic nuances?

Totally absurd!

I'm going to assume this was a cheap rhetorical device since you know full well that's not what I was doing.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I remember being taught that policies change but doctrines do not. That would seem not to be the case.

What do you think "eternal progression" entails??

No change forever??   Obviously not, doctrine will of course change as the times change.   We have even dropped belief in phrenology, that's how radical we are now.

If that is what you were taught, it was in a fundamentalist context.

We now do not worry about evolution- and in fact the church now is about "Becoming".  You cannot change from a natural man to a Christ-centered man without.... changing!

Blacks have the priesthood.   We do not endorse polygamy.  

We have to grow up sometimes

I guess we should go back to radio silence

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

It seems to me the doctrine about the nature of who God is and what God's attributes are should be fairly consistent don't you?  There was a time the LDS Church thought so and was critical of historical Christianity for their evolving creeds.

If you believe God is a fictional character that would be a logical assumption.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What do you think "eternal progression" entails??

No change forever??   Obviously not, doctrine will of course change as the times change.   We have even dropped belief in phrenology, that's how radical we are now.

If that is what you were taught, it was in a fundamentalist context.

We now do not worry about evolution- and in fact the church now is about "Becoming".  You cannot change from a natural man to a Christ-centered man without.... changing!

Blacks have the priesthood.   We do not endorse polygamy.  

We have to grow up sometimes

I guess we should go back to radio silence

I was thinking of this:

”Doctrine refers to the eternal, unchanging, and simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are several key words in that definition: eternal, unchanging, simple, and truth. Doctrines are never altered. They never vary. They will always be the same. You can always count on them. There is, for example, the doctrine of the Atonement. There is doctrine related to priesthood and priesthood keys. There is doctrine related to continuing revelation and the pattern whereby our Heavenly Father communicates with us and we communicate with Him. These are eternal, unchanging truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

 

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Jamie said:

Then how else did you think God could forgive someone for something without satisfying the demands of justice?  Do you understand that the only reason God can forgive us through Jesus is because Jesus satisfied those demands of justice?

... not because of the blood of Jesus Christ, aside from the symbolism of his blood representing him giving his life, but because Jesus did everything God our Father told him to do.

Can't the demands of justice be met by the truly penitent?  I don't demand death from my children if they commit perceived offenses against me.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was thinking of this:

”Doctrine refers to the eternal, unchanging, and simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are several key words in that definition: eternal, unchanging, simple, and truth. Doctrines are never altered. They never vary. They will always be the same. You can always count on them. There is, for example, the doctrine of the Atonement. There is doctrine related to priesthood and priesthood keys. There is doctrine related to continuing revelation and the pattern whereby our Heavenly Father communicates with us and we communicate with Him. These are eternal, unchanging truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

 

Bednar, June 4, 1998.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Bednar, June 4, 1998.

That fundamentalist.

[ttribe]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

That fundamentalist.

Indeed.  Perhaps Mark's beef is with Elder Bednar, not you, nor I?

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sure he is.
But his forgiveness doesn't remove the requirements of justice and broken law.  Christ's sacrifice is NOT about gaining God's forgiveness of sin.

Who created the requirements of justice and broken law?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Who created the requirements of justice and broken law?

SPOILER ALERT - the answer will be some derivative of "they weren't created, they are simply eternal laws to which God is subject and cannot be broken by Him."

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Who created the requirements of justice and broken law?

Nobody.  Just like nobody created the first law of thermodynamics.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because faith is evidence/assurance of things not seen.
I have experienced enough of this evidence/assurance to know many principles of faith are true.  I can trust my faith because I've seen the natural consequence of it.
I've also seen and experienced the natural consequence of sin, enough to know that it's not just about God punishing or forgiving.  There are natural negative results from all sin.  Eternal laws that don't rely on a God to implement the consequence.

Personally it seems to me that “Faith” really is just pretending to know things you do not actually know.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can't the demands of justice be met by the truly penitent?  I don't demand death from my children if they commit perceived offenses against me.

Again with the idea that justice is somehow God's opinion and willingness to forgive or not.  That's wrong.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Personally it seems to me that “Faith” really is just pretending to know things you do not actually know.

It's not.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm going to assume this was a cheap rhetorical device since you know full well that's not what I was doing.

No, that is exactly what you were doing.

Quote

Unfortunately, 'a matter of semantics' doesn't quite capture the discussion.  If you go back and look at my comments on this subject, I believe it is very evident what I consider to be a natural law versus spiritual laws regarding the concept of 'sin.' 

So now WE have to go back and figure out what semantics you were using.   What you believe is "evident" is not "evident to anyone else.  Why should I go back and try to analyze what YOU meant?

Quote

It continues to be my assertion that there is no 'sin' which results in a violation of a natural law. 

So you are re-asserting your semantics then.

Quote

For example, disobedience to the Word of Wisdom does not result in the earth spinning off its axis. 

Totally absurd. Disobedience to the WOW can cause addictions- a natural consequence.  Smoking causes cancer- a natural consequence. Drunkeness causes a variety of evils like traffic accidents, possibly leading to fatalities- another natural consequence.  And that's just the beginning.

No these do not result in the earth spinning off its axis, an absurd analogy.

Nevertheless, only under your absurd semantics does your statement illustrate your absurd point.

Quote

The consequences of 'sin' are either: 1) imposed by humans or a Diety; or 2), societal.  It may follow that a person loses his or her Temple Recommend as a result of disobedience, but nature has no reaction to that event.

Not sure of what this has to do with the point you are trying to make, but these assertions come out of your special pleading definition of "natural"

If something is caused by a human, apparently it cannot be a "natural" consequence, even though humans are not exactly "unnatural" beings.   Last time I looked, babies are born by a natural process.  We are certainy not "supernatural" either.  Scriptures speak of the "natural man" and since this is a spiritual discussion it seems NATURAL to see Humans as "natural".

That makes "societal" consequences natural as well.

And getting a recommend requires a natural human being to pick up a natural pen and draw some natural, phyical  squiggles on a piece of what we call "paper" made using "natural processes" or using his natural mind, refusing to perform those actions,

The entire proposition that what humans do is not "natural" seems totally absurd to me, and totally arbitrary, a new dualism that is undefinable.

Both signing a temple recommend  or not signing it is now an "unnatural act".

Interesting

It's just too absurd- I am out

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you believe God is a fictional character that would be a logical assumption.

So if I expect teachings about God, his nature and attributes to be consistent I believe God is fictional?  That makes no sense.

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody.  Just like nobody created the first law of thermodynamics.

Laws like justice or broken laws originate from somewhere. If God is subject to these unmade laws then God is not omnipotent.  I realize in LDS doctrine God is likely not omnipotent at least in the traditional Christian way of thinking. Clearly in the Orthodox Christian mind the Mormon God is a weak god. I wonder what happens to the Mormon God if the Universe ends by heat death.  I assume you believe God is subject to the laws of thermodynamics.